I just don't want to learn another set of weird numbers for controllers. And that's one of the promises of MIDI 2.0: PROFILING.

Say, you have a modern analog synth or a virtual synth. You connect two different synths together, they "see" each other" with all of their hardware controls and voilá, you can completely control a synth from another synth with full auto-mapping (profiling).

Or, say, you have an organ... or two organs... or a MIDI controller which happens to have 9 faders... when connected and profiled, you will have those faders or drawbars ready to control the other organ or software.

... just to start with... and I'm really excited. Why not?

If it's backwards compatible and I can use new and old stuff together... Yes, I DO CARE.

Yeah, I care too. I like all the profiling and such, and I like that a lot of MIDI 1.0 devices will be able to do some of the MIDI 2.0 functionality. I guess as opposed to forward or backward compatibility, that would be "prescient compatibility"

The trap door that's built into the spec for higher resolution is also pretty cool. It will probably take a while for instruments to incorporate that, but it's significant.

I'm surprised there's not more of a buzz going on about this, considering how long people have been grousing that we've been stuck on MIDI 1.0. True story: Someone gave my MIDI for Musicians book at 1-star review on Amazon, even though he admitted he never read it, because he said clearly the book was obsolete Someone else hipped him to the fact that MIDI 1.0 is still happening, and everything in the book about the spec is still true...

A lot of thought went into making the MIDI 1.0 to MIDI 2.0 transition as seamless as possible. I think good stuff is ahead.

I don't use MIDI for recording. I use it for connecting various beat boxes. I'm so heavily vested into MIDI 1 that it may take 10 years or more before I could fully convert, and I am afraid that partial conversion is nothing. I've got 8 Electron devices that I connect through MIDI and cannot afford to replace them. I really hope that integration between MIDI 1 and 2 is useful and well thought out. Otherwise I may never really use MIDI 2.

I make orchestral accompaniments of classical music (cantatas, oratorios, opera) for my wife (semi-pro, bel canto mezzo soprano) to sing to when there's no orchestra available.Using some of the orchestral VSTI's that are available today I find I can do all I need to with MIDI 1.0.I was experimenting with using all 16 channels, with a note on each channel and using pitch bend to achieve genuine sharps and flats some 15 years ago.

The new ASM Hydrasynth seems to achieve most of what we want as performing musicians using MIDI 1.0 too.

And it's not so much the specification, more who actually implements some (all?) the new features, and at what sort of monstrous cost.

I still can't play the keyboard consistently so that I achieve every one of the 127 currently available velocity levels, and I don't know anyone who can.Why do we need a shedload more?

I still can't play the keyboard consistently so that I achieve every one of the 127 currently available velocity levels, and I don't know anyone who can.Why do we need a shedload more?

As a lifelong piano player, I would argue that 127 levels of keyboard velocity is not enough. The Rhodes Chroma uses 256 levels for keyboard velocity and that feels more natural. The ARP folks who designed the Chroma fought for 256 level keyboard velocity at the initial design for MIDI 1.0.

There was a thread on this not too long ago. It will be cool as long as manufacturers start realeasing gear that takes advantage of it. Initially I see it having the biggest impact with so,e of these alternative controllers.

I don't use MIDI for recording. I use it for connecting various beat boxes. I'm so heavily vested into MIDI 1 that it may take 10 years or more before I could fully convert, and I am afraid that partial conversion is nothing.

Actually, you don't "convert" from MIDI 1.0 to MIDI 2.0. The two scenarios are: there's an update for MIDI 1.0 gear that gives it some MIDI 2.0 capabilities, or you add MIDI 2.0 gear to your existing MIDI 1.0 setup. It's pretty benign that way. MPE (MIDI Polyphonic Expression) as used in the LinnStrument and ROLI keyboards is a good example of how things can proceed. They work with gear that's not compatible with MPE, you just don't derive all the benefits. But if you have a synth that's MPE-compatible, then you get the full spectrum of options.

I think the main thrust for MIDI 2.0 will be, as J. Dan said, controllers but not necessarily just alternate controllers. If I was in the market for a new controller and one had higher resolution and profiling, I'd buy it. I could still use it with the MIDI 1.0 gear, but also with MIDI 2.0-compatible stuff.

MIDI 2.0 features will roll out over a period of several years. It could easily be two or three years (or more) before you could put together an "all MIDI 2.0" system. That's why it's so important that new gear works with old gear. The manufacturers involved in formulating the spec pretty much rejected any proposals that would make MIDI 1.0 gear obsolete.

As long as it's backwards compatible, I'm OK with it. Time will tell if it offers anything for me personally. I have a lot invested in 5 pin DIN connectors, so as long as they are still workable, I'm happy.

I care. The high resolution is important. I have a VAX77 that reports 4k velocity levels - played with PianoTeq it is just more natural feeling. It isn't about consistently hitting the same number. It is about being completely unable to hit the same number, it same way that a piano can't. I also have a Non-Linear Labs C15. It doesn't even use MIDI so that it can massively overscan the keyboard in a similar fashion. It is wonderful to play, and you notice how much more connected the sound is. I have three synths with identical top-of-the-line Fatar actions. Two are standard MIDI, the C15 is sensed through propriety means at 4,000 levels. It is far more expressive to play. I don't know what the "right" number is, but it is more that 128. Think also of filter sweeps and other things that only work with lag processing in a 7-bit controller space. Smoothness for controls lives well above 128. The profiling and other things are wonderful advancements. I hope MIDI 2.0 is widely adopted.

I also hope that we see someone start making controllers with the care that luthiers use on guitars or violins. It is about time that someone made instrument grade actions for synthesizers. Maybe it is just better sensing... But anything that gets more data out of the controllers is good. All the best stuff, like the Hakken Continuum don't use MIDI because it is too limited. If MIDI 2.0 fixes that, it would be wonderful to have it widespread.

I don't think it will make any difference, unless they come up with a firmware/software upgrade. They already have a sort of profiling with NKS, perhaps the MIDI profiles can be "skinned" to feel like you're using NKS...but I don't know. MIDI 2.0 is still very young.

I do care also, I'm far from an expert but as a gigging keyboard player I'd used it somewhat extensively to control my keyboards and rack gear as well as for the occasional backing tracks. I've found it useful for recording also. SYSEX, program changes, volume, expression, panning; I've spent a lot of time looking at the CC list. I get the emails from the MIDI association but must admit I don't take time to do much reading or research.Just as I thought I was going to get back to recording my back log of original material I'm finding myself being sucked into creating some backing tracks for my husband/wife duo. I'll be using midi on that until it's coming out of my ears!

As long as it's backwards compatible, I'm OK with it. Time will tell if it offers anything for me personally. I have a lot invested in 5 pin DIN connectors, so as long as they are still workable, I'm happy.

Notes

And if there is a gem or two in there that makes my life easier or my music better, I'll be even happier.

A lot of MIDI 2.0 is intended to streamline that process. It's one of the areas that really interests me, although the hi-res stuff that will come down the pike at some point is needed. To me one of the differences between analog and virtual analog is when you sweep that resonant filter, and there are audible steps instead of a smooth continuum.

I've used SYSEX primarily to switch modes on synths (patch-<->combi, etc.) but never had any luck trying to create my own, even after I'd studied it and thought I understood it, there was always a piece of information that seemed to be missing. Fortunately I've found most of what I needed from forums and manufacturers websites.